Template talk:Foe
Backgrounds I've produced 3 different background colors, and IMHO they're all very easy on the eyes. But I don't know which one would be better for "Normal" battles, that are the vast majority. Which one (one of the proposed, or another one) should we make our default? Scarbrowtalk 04:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I think two of the colors are too dark. Here's some web-safe color alternatives: What do you think? I think the green should be default - very easy on the eyes. --Octarinemagetalk 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC) :While the easy and difficult battles are nicely set apart by backgrounding, I am of the opinion that 'normal' combats are better off without a background color. Check out the Ring of Illusion, I feel the bolding of the foe name provides more than enough emphasis, and that the backgrounding looks rather 'busy' and distracts without adding content. Joddelle 00:08, October 12, 2009 (UTC) :: Well, seems like we have different opinions on this matter. Other wiki editors have also expressed me the exact opposite views. As I said on the forum thread, I could allow for "color" to accept "none" or something like that. My concern is that it would somehow diminish the "standard" look & feel of the template. How about some more opinions voiced here, so we can reach a community consensus? Scarbrowtalk 06:03, October 14, 2009 (UTC) ::Take a look at an interesting discussion developing here, but let's keep the comments in this page so we all can see them. Scarbrowtalk 06:21, October 14, 2009 (UTC) ::: I like the idea of "none" as an option for color. As Joddelle mentioned--in some cases, it really doesn't need to draw that much attention. In particular, random encounters (in which the enemy has a fixed 9+ MR and SP) really don't need a highlighted list. I agree with keeping the default color as default, but it's just a personal preference to have more flexibility with the background color. As for having colors to denote "subduing", "non-lethal", "required" vs. "optional" fights--that can probably be supplemented by having a Wiki page with the purpose of supplying a color key that walkthroughs are recommended to link to. (Yeah, I know it sounds like more work, but I don't mind helping to chip in.) The required and optional fights was my primary concern, since it makes it easy to see at a glance (especially on a transcluded quest box) which difficulty is needed, and which one is optional. I've avoided using Template:Foe on questboxes for now, because the same highlighting for both just doesn't seem right. --Wetheril(talk) 11:24, October 14, 2009 (UTC) :::: I think Template:Foe is not the best option for Questboxes: too much info, too much potential for spoiler. The difficulty if best kept as a simple reference, like recommended MR and SP values, and all of that summarized on a single line. However, if you insist on using it, you can stress the difference with the existing color options: you only need an appropriate color key, right? although I still maintain that for a new user, the different colors won't offer an intuitive enough guide, and we'd better stay to descriptive text. As a further argument, there are both color-blind and fully blind players of this game, and we can't rely too much on contextual information to convey subtle details. On another note, I'm adding the option "none" to "color" parameter, to allow for editorial style and decision. Scarbrowtalk 20:18, October 14, 2009 (UTC) ::::: Thank you for adding 'none' as an option. And I have been in the habit of putting "9+ at Joddelle 11:23, October 15, 2009 (UTC) The great DIVide You can eliminate the weird boxes of each line of a long DIV by specifying any height less than the font size. For example: height:0em; works, believe it or not. The renderer is forced to specify the height (making it one outlined box) if it finds any height given is less than the height of the contents. However, (sigh) I don't think it will work inline. --Octarinemagetalk 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Hmmm. It works on IE but not on Firefox. I'll keep investigating... --Octarinemagetalk 15:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I found a way to make it work on all browsers, but it forces the DIV to display as a block instead of inline. That's expected. You're better off using a SPAN tag instead since it's already inline and adding padding:0px 2px 0px 2px; to the style. --Octarinemagetalk 15:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC) The Work Continues I've made a few tests. If you don't mind, I'd like to take a stab at continuing and adding in all the concepts you outlined. --Octarinemagetalk 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) A concern First off: GREAT job with this Scarbrow! Wonderful addition to our tools. Joddelle 22:58, October 11, 2009 (UTC) :Now to the concern: :How do we approximate 9+'s? Many, many monsters have variable MR you can't nail down at one 9@XX. For instance, I just finished updating Quest:The Outpost and all the Naranok except the leader have variable stats (both MR and SP) I'd like to see a flag for 'variable' that adds an approximation sign ~ before the MR, or a VARABLE notice to replace the EXACT or better yet, a ± after the MR. So for instance, the pairs of 3 Naranok guarding the leader could be expressed as 9+ at MR 76±3 EXACT, ~95 SP Joddelle 22:58, October 11, 2009 (UTC) :: I see. Well, that would be quite difficult to add, and I confess I can't currently think of a way around it, but allow me to marinate it a bit, and I'll see what I can do. As a temporary walkaround, if you write something like you'll get , and that's very close to what you want. Although I should add some parameter to change the hover tooltip when, as in this case, you're just sure that is the exact range of variation. Scarbrowtalk 06:03, October 14, 2009 (UTC) ::: I think the 9@40|9@46 works very well for variable monsters of the 43±3 variety. Thanks for the tip! Joddelle 11:27, October 15, 2009 (UTC) Could it also show the 3+ & 18+ values? I agree with Joddelle -- great job! But as far as the question... As in, if it knows the 9+, could it also show the minimum MR at which the foe is 3+, and the maximum MR at which the foe is 18+? Its probably asking a lot, but in Proving Grounds adventures, knowing the 3+ value would be especially desirable... --Hastifertalk 17:12, October 12, 2009 (UTC) : I don't like this idea at all. the 3+ is just 12 down from the 9+, and it's pretty intuitive to me that "if the 9+ is 10 more than my MR - stay away! Just my two cents. Joddelle 22:12, October 12, 2009 (UTC) :: I can see why you don't think it's necessary, Joddelle, though the average player probably doesn't know this unless they read combat (and you can't force people to read something--they can be pointed to it, but that's the most you can do), or they're very observant. I highly recommend including a minimum 3+ when writing a walkthrough, but I'm not sure about putting it in the Foe:Template itself. --Wetheril(talk) 23:31, October 12, 2009 (UTC) ::: Now that I agree with. Especially for a proving grounds, you can put something like: All enemies are 3+ at MR ?? or higher in the difficulty section. Giving out the 'minimum' 3+ for individual monsters does not, to me, seem worthwhile. Joddelle 00:48, October 13, 2009 (UTC) ::::Buuuuut I want to be lazy.... ok I agree with both of you.--Hastifertalk 12:56, October 13, 2009 (UTC) ::::: I think your concern is valid. Many players do intuitively start to define an enemy's difficulty by the lowest MR required for it to be 3+, and not all of them are accustomed to our ways. I could add another parameter, like |show3, that would show the compensated 3+ value. Once I have the 9+ one, this is rather easy to calculate. Not so easy to implement on the current template code, but if I get around to do some performance changes I've been thinking about, it might be possible. I'll take a look at it, too. Scarbrowtalk 06:03, October 14, 2009 (UTC) Creature Type I realize you could put it in surrounding text, or in |notes=, but is a separate field for |type= worthwhile? There are several types with special vulnerabilities to specific weapons or Powers. The ones I can think of immediately are: * Undead * Insects * Elementals * Dragons * Giants * Demons Joddelle 16:53, October 16, 2009 (UTC) : What would be the advantage of adding a parameter for type of foe? I mean, what can be expressed with |type=undead that cannot be achieved by |notes=undead enemy? As for the Powers, the only one I can think of is Necromancy, but see Talk:Necromancy#Vs_Living_and_Vs_Undead and Necromancy#New_Table, this might not be true as we previously thought. The only advantage I can think of would be to link the weapons that give extra MR against that type of enemies, and that information is not very useful when you're planning an encounter: if you're going to use one of those, you better have it already. In short, probably best left as a note. Scarbrowtalk 20:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC) :: I was thinking just that: When someone is looking over an Adventure or Proving Grounds Scenario, they might want to consider what weapon to take into battle before entering the adventure - as in going to get Demonscourge out of storage before starting an adventure with demons in it. And type just seemed a logical thing to have its own field rather than being lumped into notes, where it's likely to be formatted differently by different wiki authors. I'm just asking for opionions here, not suggesting we should do it. Though if asked I would be for having the field. Joddelle 02:01, October 17, 2009 (UTC) ::: I've added the field, with a link to the weapon category. It looks like it works. If someone wants to change how it shows up in the foe box, please change it. I'm thinking it can possibly just be shortened to the single linked word. EDIT: Displaying "-type foe" might only help if the parameter can't be parsed (due to the default switch case). K!ZeRotalk 04:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC) FLEE parameter Quote: "flee: Either the number of the first round you're able to flee (1 or lower will be ignored) or "no" if you can't flee at all." Why is "1" ignored? There is a difference between being able to flee after 1 round of combat, and being able to flee from the very start, without having to attack the enemy. If you can flee after 1 round of combat, then that means the enemy gets two chances to hit and kill you (first during round 1, and then during round 2 while you flee). So it matters if you can flee after 1 round of combat, or right away.--Shadowblack 13:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC) : Being able to flee after 1 round of combat means you enter "flee=2" ("the number of the first round you're able to flee"). "flee=1" just means being able to flee right away. K!ZeRotalk 16:07, September 21, 2010 (UTC) :: And I just added that. Thanks for mentioning it, Shadowblack. Scarbrowtalk 16:10, September 21, 2010 (UTC) ::: Not sure about the latest template update. I think the initial issue is that yes, there is a difference between fleeing after 1 round of combat, or right away. If you can flee after 1 round of combat, then the parameter is "flee=2". If you can flee right away, you don't need to put in a flee parameter. With the latest update, when would we put "flee=1" versus not putting in the parameter? I thought the assumption is you can flee from combat normally unless stated otherwise, hence the parameter. This is similar to other parameters like "immune", "resistant", "nonlethal", etc. If it's not listed, there is an assumption made. Otherwise, there may be confusion when the foebox doesn't explicitly say you can flee. K!ZeRotalk 16:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC) :::: I thought that "flee=1" mean "you can flee AFTER turn 1" and NOT "You can flee ON turn 1". Looks like I'll have to edit some of my recent additions - anything that says "flee=1" should be "flee=2", it seems.--Shadowblack 16:58, September 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I've reverted the template to still ignore "flee=1", but reworded the usage a bit to hopefully avoid future confusion. Also, I did this because I added in enumerations for antimagic: "overwhelming", "moderate", and a default case. K!ZeRotalk 05:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC) (Restart Indent) I though the wording was absolutely precise. "The number of the first round you're able to flee". If you're able to flee from the start, that's round 1. Hence, flee = 1. And I think having that is useful. In fact, Kzero, I challenge your assertion that "If it's not listed, there is an assumption made." You can't assume. Foe use might be incomplete, and in fact most of them are, owing to either incomplete data to start with, or the fact the template has evolved after that quest was documented, or just the writer of the walkthrough wasn't absolutely thorough. Heck, even me, I'm not absolutely thorough all the time. Even Shadowblack makes mistakes some times, and he's maybe our best data keeper. I'm adding another parameter, this time to allow to ascertain if an enemy can be damaged by unarmed attacks. And no, it's not the same as NOT having the "immune" parameter. I won't add that parameter if I'm not doing the quest unarmed. But if I do the quest unarmed, I want to have a way to tell other unarmed fighters it's OK to go there with your fists. Even if you do not agree, please talk it here before undoing my contributions. It's starting to get annoying. Scarbrowtalk 21:20, September 22, 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Although we'd probably need a shorter way to express it, since as you can see in Trouble in Werrit, it's a quite long phrase for such a common occurrence. Scarbrowtalk 21:41, September 22, 2010 (UTC) : Hey now, when did I undo your other contributions? I only reverted the template change because Shadowblack had only misunderstood the meaning of the flee parameter; I didn't have any issue with the wording. Otherwise, your template change affected the (as far as I can tell) original intent of the parameter: to simply indicate when you can't flee from combat, whether for several rounds or the entire battle. : I'm fine if we want to allow "flee=1" but then what about other parameters? Should foeboxes explicitly state that a foe is not magic-resistant, or does not have an anti-magic aura? I think it's reasonable to conclude certain information from undeclared parameters, rather than concluding that the information is unknown. If we go with a different philosophy, we should probably be consistent though. : As for the "unarmed" parameter, from DarnFoe, I can't tell how it is any different from not immune, and the foebox wording seems to be the same as not immune. Are there foes that are immune to unarmed, but not to non-magical weapons? Otherwise, why not add a case for the "immune" parameter? K!ZeRotalk 22:10, September 22, 2010 (UTC) :: You're probably right. Sorry, I'm sleepy. But I thought I was reverted twice by you in the last few days... oh, well, it's not important. For more arguments to not trust undeclared parameters, I'll throw in my death, right now, at The Bog Giant with a secondary who was trying to pummel the Thorny vines and just was so unfortunate to try to Quick-combat them. I reached below 25% SP (stopping combat) at round 63. All went downhill from there. :: Your argument for a case of "immune" is solid. Foes are either immune to all regular attacks (unarmed and nonmagical alike) or vulnerable to all of them. Again, sorry, sleepy. I'll fix it tomorrow, too tired now to think. I don't want to worsen it. :: I think positive parameters would do no harm, and might do some good. However, if we were to fully specify them, we'd have to shorten considerably, the way the 9+ MR values and the SP and XP abbreviations work. Need more ideas... tomorrow :: Scarbrowtalk 22:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC) ::: Understood about doing tasks with lack of sleep. Hope it's not from work, and from something enjoyable instead! ::: I agree with somehow retaining the fact of a confirmed parameter value (something that seems very important for those XP rewards from skill/power usages). But I didn't like displaying it on the page due to (1) the additional lengthy text and (2) if we state reasonable basic assumptions (with disclaimer that it is possibly incomplete information still), it wouldn't be as needed. What about editors remembering it to document in the foebox call, but it gets ignored/parsed by the template for display? If we think we want to explicitly show all the information, I can only think of making this template like itembox... If people don't think it's too much, it'd make the foe data much more complete. K!ZeRotalk 22:58, September 22, 2010 (UTC) :::: I have a bold idea on that. Two, in fact. For some time I've been thinking that some enemies (like Oakaruk, for example) tend to have too long lines, when they have several descriptive data. Confirmed parameter values would make that worse for all enemies. So, we should try to reconcile cramming more information in there with the nice, simple, informative one-line format. I suggest two ways of accomplishing that: ::::# Instead of the full text (like "can't flee until the 5th round") we put an abbreviation with an alt title (like the notes on variable, exact, approx and scaled MR). The previous phrase would be then reduced to something like "F5". Even better if we used some special typography to indicate it's not a common letter, but instead a summary. Line being so short, the alt titles could be used to convey "confirmed", "unconfirmed", and specific status information about each parameter. ::::# Using some Javascript to expand the calls on a little "summary box" (can be combined with the previous format), so if the reader clicks on them, the abbreviation changes to the full form and the links you add in there become clickable. :::: It's just a rough sketch of my idea (I don't have time for more, gotta go to work), but I think it might be the end of our space problems, without resorting to something as drastic as an itembox-like full box for each enemy. :::: Scarbrowtalk 03:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC) (Restart Indent) Two more issues with the "flee" parameter: # Sometimes you can flee without engaging the enemy - a "Flee Immediately" button is available right below the "Begin Combat" button. There are many such enemies - most of the ones encountered during Explore the realms at random, a number of enemies in Old North Wood, and probably some I'm forgetting. Is there any way to mark such enemies? In my files I use "flee=0" for them, but that won't work with the Foe template. I suggest adding "flee=0" for when "Flee Immediately" is available since before the battle (so the enemy does not get a chance to hit you) and "flee=1" for when you MUST engage the enemy, but can flee from round 1 (so the enemy will get at least one chance to hit - and kill - you). "Flee=1" should be the default value # Some enemies have a random flee number. How do we mark that? And yes, I am sure - Sheara (MR 80) encountered a Shadow Path and fought the following enemies (listed in the order in which they appeared): #* 3 Onyxian Ghouls 3+, flee=2, special=16 #* Onyxian War Beast 3+, flee=2 #* 4 Onyxian Bone Warriors 3+, flee=3 #* Onyxian War Beast 3+, flee=3, special=12 #* 2 Onyxian War Beasts 3+, flee=4, special=9 #* Onyxian Bone Warrior 3+, flee=4, special=4 #* 2 Onyxian Ghouls 3+, flee=3, special=9 #* 2 Onyxian War Beasts 3+, flee=2 #* Onyxian Ghoul 3+, flee=4 #* 3 Onyxian Ghouls 3+, flee=3 #* 2 Onyxian Bone Mages 3+, flee=3 #* 2 Onyxian War Beasts 3+, flee=4, special=9 #* Onyxian War Beast 3+, flee=4 #* Onyxian Bone Mage 3+, flee=2 #* 2 Onyxian Bone Warriors 3+, flee=2 #* 4 Onyxian Ghouls 3+, flee=2 #* 4 Onyxian Bone Slayers 6@80, 3@109, flee=2, special=12 #* 2 Onyxian Ghouls 3+, flee=3 --Shadowblack 12:21, October 21, 2010 (UTC) : I had read you. It's just that I'm not in the mood for template processing right now. Yes I think we should address the "Flee immediately" matter, and your suggestion is good. About the random flee, I don't think they are the same enemies at all. As with all or most enemies with variable stats, I interpret that as different enemies with the same name. How would you like them to show? Flee at turn=random? I don't have ideas for the matter right now. Scarbrowtalk 18:53, October 21, 2010 (UTC) Couple ideas for additional parameters Some additional parameter ideas, some from the forum, to preserve: * Foes that heal themselves - Seems like this could be a good parameter if the game mechanics can somewhat be figured out. * Foes that are mirror images of the character - Could be a complicated parameter, as I imagine a lot of other parameters do not apply (MR, SP, NV), while others may still apply (flee, XP). * Foes that do not have an opportunity to rest before its battle - Unlike the above ideas, this one seems much more common. This parameter is mainly for those fights that are consecutive with no chance to heal between fights. K!ZeRotalk 04:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :* Foes that heal themselves - that's just another special, only instead of causing harm to you it heals them (like the Hale Blade heals you instead of hurting the enemy). Any reason not to use "special="? That's how it has been done so far... :* How many such "mirror" enemies are there? And how are they different from the usual scaled enemies? Why do we even need such a parameter? :* That's usually mentioned in the text, outside the Foe template. I'm on the opinion that it should stay that way - a single "no chance between battles" is better than adding the info to every Foe template, especially if there are many enemies :Just my thoughts.--Shadowblack 12:12, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :: I completely agree with Shadowblack. Scarbrowtalk 18:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC) ::: Looks like we have guidelines for 2 of the foe characteristics that work. I never encountered a mirror foe yet, nor saw it mentioned in an article, but if I had to put that info on a page, it wouldn't be using the Foe template, but a lengthy description of all the mirrored stats and maybe the ones that aren't; so it'd just be different from how we document foes. K!ZeRotalk 18:38, October 6, 2010 (UTC)